Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Ashutosh Builders Contractors and Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual disputes and arbitration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arbitrability of disputes conceded. (Para 5) |
| 3. appointment of arbitrator and governing fee. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. disposal of petition. (Para 9) |
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner claims to be a contractor, carrying out various construction related activities. Respondent No.1 is Union of India, under the Ministry of Defence; respondents No. 2 to 4 are subordinate of respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 is also the accepting authority of the contract work awarded to the petitioner. For the work CA No. GE/DW-67/2019-20, petitioner claims to have entered into a Contract Agreement dated 12.10.2019 with the respondent, which contained Arbitration Clause-70 in case of any disputes between the parties.
3. After execution of the aforesaid Contract Agreement, petitioner claims to have sent samples for 13 items for approval by the respondent such like LED fitting, Cable-1.5 sqmm, 2.5 sqmm, socket, switch etc. on 25.10.2
Disputes under contracts with the Union of India are arbitrable, and the appointment of an independent arbitrator is necessary for their resolution under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Concilia....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes between parties.
The court affirmed that when parties acknowledge disputes in a contractual agreement, an arbitrator must be appointed to resolve these disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputed claims between parties in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration an....
Disputes concerning contract completion and payment arise, necessitating arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates principles of unbiased dispute resolution. An arbitrator must be appointed consensually or by the court.
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court applied the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator and ensure compliance before commencing the arbitration.
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes in accordance with the arbitration clause under the General Conditions of Contract.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
